A group of practicing Muslim prisoners at the Monroe Correctional Complex filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on June 10, 2018, alleging that prison staff deprived them of nighttime meals while they were fasting during Ramadan. Represented by the ... read more >

A group of practicing Muslim prisoners at the Monroe Correctional Complex filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on June 10, 2018, alleging that prison staff deprived them of nighttime meals while they were fasting during Ramadan. Represented by the Center for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), they brought this action against the Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC) and sought declaratory and emergency injunctive relief. According to the plaintiffs, despite their requests, the prison chaplain refused to add them to a list of prisoners to be served specially-timed meals during the month of Ramadan (“the Ramadan List”), in effect subjecting them to a “starvation policy” because the normal schedule for meals at the prison all fell within the time of day when they are fasting. They alleged that this violated the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).

Along with their complaint, the plaintiffs also filed a motion temporary restraining order that would force the prison to provide them with legally adequate meals through the end of Ramadan; that motion was granted by District Judge Ronald B. Leighton the same day–June 10, 2018.

In its answer filed on July 5, 2018, the DOC denied virtually all of the pertinent allegations in the complaint. It disputed the plaintiffs’ contention that it refused to add them to the Ramadan List, maintaining that the prisoners had not signed up during the established sign-up period. It denied the existence of a “starvation policy” towards Muslims at the prison. Finally, it made a number of different affirmative defenses, including qualified immunity for state government officials. The case has been assigned to District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 4, 2018. On October 3, 2018, in light of the plaintiffs' amended complaint, submitted on September 12, 2018, the court dismissed the defendants' motion as moot. The parties began discovery in preparation for the trial, scheduled for October 7, 2019.

The defendants moved for summary judgment on July 9, 2019. Their motion asserted that the plaintiffs had failed to exhaust administrative remedies before filing their amended complaint. Defendants also argues that the sign-up procedures for the "Ramadan List" did not significantly burden the plaintiffs' religious beliefs and serve a compelling government interest, making the RLUIPA claims not viable. They defendants further assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the constitutional claims.

The plaintiffs filed their own motion for summary judgment that same day. Their brief reasserted an argument for the validity of their RLUIPA claims, the 8th Amendment claim, and their Equal Protection and Free Exercise claim. They also argue that the defendants should not be entitled to qualified immunity.

The court granted the defendants motion for summary judgment on September 6, 2019 and dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims as moot. Defendants filed for costs on September 27, 2019. Their request was granted in part and denied in part on October 22, 2019.

The plaintiffs appealed the order granting the defendants motion for summary judgment to the Ninth Circuit on October 4, 2019. As of April 10, 2020, parties are awaiting a reply from the circuit court and the case is ongoing.